Annoying creationists

[hammegk]

This is a person who questioned my English skills?

And one who purports to be a teacher ... or should I say teechur .... ROFL.

 

[articulett]

I don't think evolution is testable any more than I think arithmetic is testable.

As a matter of fact, arithmetic does become testable when articulated within a concrete context and, in my opinion, the same is true of evolution.

The mechanism I have proposed is perfectly clear and there are many concrete developments that could test it. However, even if those tests failed, and my mechanism of prebiotic evolution proved to be wrong, still that would not constitute a test of evolution per se.

I got it. Evolution is flawed and can't be tested unless "articulated within a concrete context". You have a testable theory, but even if it's wrong that doesn't mean evolution or other explanations are right.

So, basically, there is no way that anyone can prove evolution is true to you, nor can falsification of your poorly defined theory ever be used to get you to think that evolution is on track. BTW, I can understand the talkorigins link about abiogenesis just fine, it's you that people are having problems understanding from what I can tell. I don't really think my inability to understand you has anything to do with your certainty about my lack of understanding on the topic.

 

[articulett]

And one who purports to be a teacher ... or should I say teechur .... ROFL.

I just think it's precious when the woo amuses himself. It's adorable the way you use childish acronyms and emoticons in the majority of your posts.

Hint: When I go back and read my posts, I find lots of typos--usually the "sound alike" kind (like "here" and "hear")--so if that makes you happy, I assure you that reading my posts can keep you gleeful for hours--you'll be using really long acronyms about rolling on the floor laughing body parts off and you can work yourself into an orgasm of emoticon abuse.

 

[The Atheist]

Backpedaling are you? I wasn't screaming creationist,...

Excuse me, but you were doing just that. I don't want to spend the time going back over that many posts to cherry-pick, but you assuredly were.

you just couldn't hear anything I wrote once I pointed out your logical "false dichotomy" error. It's you who was hurling insults left and right and anyone who agreed with those whom you feel attacked you (Yahtzi and I for stating the obvious). I believe your comment to him was that he must be drunk.

There's still no question of false dichotomy - unless you want to dispute the "Greatest BS" side of the equation. It's hardly worth getting bogged down in, but John has made statements which leave him to be shown to be lying, there's no doubt but that there are two choices: he's right and everyone else is wrong, or he's wrong and has consistently lied about it, attempting to cover his tracks. There's no middle ground, John himself removed the "I ####ed up from the equation". In all of this, that's the thing I think you've still missed.

It's one of those situations which are so bleeding obvious, I do tend to get a bit lippy when someone misses the point. No doubt it'll happen again.

And if you check back, I'd started with you before that.

But you saved your real flames for me--unwittingly making yourself into a cheerleader for a creationist while casting aspersions (aspertions--ha) on my character.

I think I'll claim the lead in the English stakes and leave that subject, eh?

I really don't care who I cheer for. At some stage The Truth^TM will be revealed. I said right from the start that I liked John's "up yours" style.

As to creationism, I see it as identical to Flight 77 not hitting the Pentagon and take it as a given that the "theory" (as they try to dignify it with) in both cases is so stupid as to not be worth talking about. You clearly see it as that silly, but use the same approach as do the staunch Defenders of Truth in the Good Fight against CT. They're clearly no threat to anyone with a brain larger than a field-mouse, so why be so vehement about it? It's not as if this matters. Jesus, you're an American (I think), shouldn't you be working to getting the Grand Canyon tourism cards fixed before you worry about John and his theory?

You're a clever woman. Wouldn't you be better served trying to change things like that, which do matter?

And, you had actually started with the ad homs long before your silly logic error. You need to examine how your biases are affecting you rather than presuming everyone elses.

There you go, you've just confirmed what I said above about the ad homs starting prior to arguments about logic.

Biases? The only one I still have is a bias towards the underdog. When I see three blokes [metaphorically speaking - this is the internet, after all] kicking
a bloke on the ground, I don't stop to ask what's going on, I just come flying in and nail a couple of them then sort it out afterwards.

Just like we're doing?

See, that's another false dichotomy--there are many things that don't specifically fall into "lying or not".

Again, I don't think "I ####ed up/was mistaken/etc." is available.

And no one can falsify Johns theories if they don't understand it. How many words John uses doesn't matter?!, --but I use too many!? Wow, are you blind to your hypocrisy. And I contend that you don't even understand Johns theory--I'm not sure anyone does. It's becoming fun to watch you sucked in by a creationist.

There's that "C" word again...

I wouldn't claim to understand his theory based on reading a few dozen pages on his website, but I think I understand what he's saying about selection criteria and how his ideas might work.

Abiogenesis is not something one can readily explain

Finally! What harm does it do to look in depth and critically (as I don't genuinely believe that you've done) at John's theory, starting with an open mind.

It's not as though christians haven't made scientific discoveries, is it? I'm talking to a christian PhD in Theoretical Neuroscience on another board and I asked how he'd feel if he was involved in [idiot terminology - this is me] finding the part of the brain responsible for manufacturing the images, visions and voices of christ, along with identifying the gene that caused it to select itself.

He gave an excellent answer as to why god would have put it there. Christians, especially scientists, are not generally afraid of ideas which may challenge their beliefs.

Would that "skeptical" ones were as honest.

Evolutionary theory, as Darwin well recognized, was not just a new biological theory, it was a new philosophy. This work would argue that it was an epistemology, where an epistemology is a process that generates knowledge when applied to an information set. In this, its most basic form, evolutionary theory should not be seen as a scientific theory as it is doubtful whether it could ever be practically tested. The concept of an evolved creature, possessed of no knowledge except that from evolution, objectively testing a theory of evolution, contains elements of self-reference that might lead to an infinite regress.

This is a common creationist tactic--god is the ultimate infinite regress (who made god?)--if you can't make faith sound like science; make science sound like faith. Who does he think should test the theory of evolution, philosophers? God?

Now, I'm pleased you quoted that passage, because we must be reading different things. To me, the bolded part reads that John feels the options of current evolutionary theories are living rocks or god. He's offering an alternative, based on a data-input model with the sun as the first data-provider.

I see it as a bloke who doesn't like any of the current options and has looked for another. God is excluded. I just can't see where you see him offering it as an option in his work.

Put your ego and predetermined conclusions aside for a minute, and quit thinking I'm on a witch hunt for creationists or that you are the fabulous defender of underdogs. I'm using words, not weapons. I don't know if creationists are lying on purpose or if they've convinced themselves and others that they are taking the moral high ground or what. But I do know that it's a waste of time to engage them unless you are doing it for your own mental exercises or amusement. Accordingly, I give a warning and a thumbs up to my fellow skeptics. Sometimes it's nice to know a little bit about the crazy path you are about to embark upon and to keep one's expectations low and to have fun.

Based on my comments about CT above, I agree with you on the fun, if just not my type.

I have no pre-determined conclusions on this subject, other than god not being in the answer.

If you're just putting up a warning and thumbs up, why has it taken you a novella-sized amount of words to do so?

 

[articulett]

And, John, while I agree that no one understand abiogenesis completely I disagree with your contention about me being especially not up on it. I decided to see if that was true, but I found I could make sense of current scientific understanding on the topic just fine--it's you that makes no sense to anyone. If you want people to take your theory seriously, instead of insulting them, try learning to write with clarity.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061109130729.htm

Science Daily — Over the last half century, researchers have found that mineral surfaces may have played critical roles organizing, or activating, molecules that would become essential ingredients to all life--such as amino acids (the building blocks of proteins) and nucleic acids (the essence of DNA). But which of the countless possible combinations of biomolecules and mineral surfaces were key to this evolution?

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Thank you, kleinman, for moving this thread back on topic.

Now stop that! I’m supposed to be annoying evolutionarians!

If you would take the time to study this thread and the related thread on the Evolutionisdead forum you would get these answers and links with more information.

For eukaryotes, the smallest known which Paul posted is

Pelagibacter ubique with a genome length of around 1.3 million base pairs. For prokaryotes, Mycoplasma sp. is around 900,000 base pairs. There are symbionts with shorter genome lengths but are not free living organisms and are dependent upon a host.

...

I think what kjkent1 is looking for is the minimum size genome for a free living organism which I have posted above. The reason this is important is that the genome length is the dominant parameter in Dr Schneider’s model. Until one obtains a free living organism, one is confined to the concept of abiogenesis which is a weaker theory than the theory of evolution. Evolutionarians can not conceive of a selection process that would evolve a gene de novo in a living organism. What kind of selection process would there be in the primordial soup that would evolve a gene?

Alan, what I'm looking for is not the "known" minimum size genome, but rather the minimum size genome required for a creature to be capable of gaining information via RMNS. This is, admittedly, very difficult theoretical model, but my point is, that without some certain knowledge of the minimum size possible, there's no way to calculate the probability of that creature being produced by random chance, and thereafter evolving into something more complex.

Also, I asked John for his opinion re the following model, that I found on the web. I'll ask you, too. It appears pretty interesting to me. Perhaps you can point out the pros and cons.

http://www.cogsci.indiana.edu/farg/h...htm#fp_organic

Dr Schneider’s model shows that extremely short genomes such as his published example can evolve binding sites very rapidly (less than 1,000 generations). From existing life forms, you can get a sense of the minimum number of genes required to be free living. Google the word “symbionts” and you we find examples of life forms that have genomes less than 700,000 base pairs but are not free living and are dependent upon a host for crucial metabolic assistance in order to survive.

The probabilities of producing a genome by random chance alone without a selection process become infinitesimally small very quickly. Even Dr Schneider’s small genome has probabilities of 1 in 4^256 of forming a perfect creature by random mutations without selection. This is why it is quite impressive that he was able to simulate the forming of binding sites so quickly with his selection process even on his short genome example.

I took a look at your link and it doesn’t look like a realistic simulation of chemical reactions. At this point, my arguments are quite clear. With Dr Schneider’s selection process which takes into account harmful mutations in the non-binding site region shows that RM&NS becomes profoundly slow when using realistic genomes and mutation rates in his model. I also think that Dr Schneider’s model give a reasonably accurate representation of the effects of population on the rate of convergence. In addition, I think that Dr Schneider’s model shows that Darwin and Gould mistook the rapid changes that can occur with recombination and natural selection for mutation and natural selection. Gould’s postulate of punctuated equilibrium makes sense if you apply the concept to recombination and natural selection but not to mutation and natural selection. The most recent argument I raise is in response to Unnamed’s unrealistic selection process, that is that there is no realistic selection process that would evolve a gene de novo. The theory of evolution has some serious bookkeeping problems.

I'm totally enjoying Cyborg's smackdown of Kleinman.

I’m totally enjoying smacking down your mushy soft, mathematically deficient theory of evolution belief system. Why don’t describe to us the selective process that would evolve a gene de novo? Why don’t you tell us what the components of the DNA replicase system were doing before DNA could be replicated? Do you want to tell us how ribose could form in the primordial soup? Or are these a few minor gaps in your theory?

 

[cyborg]

Why don’t describe to us the selective process that would evolve a gene de novo? Why don’t you tell us what the components of the DNA replicase system were doing before DNA could be replicated?

Why don't you tell us the mathematics of de novo?

Oh that's right. You can't. You speak of 'mathematical impossibility' but all you've got is qualitative incredulity.

Which does of course explain why your posts are almost devoid of any semblance of anything that could be considered mathematic.

The problem is that mathematics is precise kleinman, you will get no respect from mathematicians let alone biologists for your bollocks.

 

[kjkent1]

Dr Schneider’s model shows that extremely short genomes such as his published example can evolve binding sites very rapidly (less than 1,000 generations). From existing life forms, you can get a sense of the minimum number of genes required to be free living. Google the word “symbionts” and you we find examples of life forms that have genomes less than 700,000 base pairs but are not free living and are dependent upon a host for crucial metabolic assistance in order to survive.

OK, so your position is that as 700,000 is the empirical reality of the smallest free living life form, that this is the actual minimum possible genome size.

But, your position is merely speculation -- not science, so we'll just have to toss it out. Which leaves the argument right where it was, with you having to prove that Unnamed's selection mechanism is flawed. Otherwise, he's successfully rebutted your contention that evolution is unreasonably slow.

I took a look at your link and it doesn’t look like a realistic simulation of chemical reactions.

I'll send the author an email and ask him to drop in and comment. Maybe we will get lucky.

If not, it appears that we're stuck, because neither side can prove anything with regard to the creation of a gene de novo.

All we know for certain is that we are here -- along with a host of other biological organisms.

 

[articulett]

Why don’t describe to us the selective process that would evolve a gene de novo? Why don’t you tell us what the components of the DNA replicase system were doing before DNA could be replicated? Do you want to tell us how ribose could form in the primordial soup? Or are these a few minor gaps in your theory?[/SIZE][/FONT]

Gee, you ought to get out more instead of trying to invent mathematical formulas that prove evolution wrong. De novo mutations happen in genes all the time. Heard of dwarfism?

As for abiogenesis, it turns out that prebiotic forms of life and bacteria are omnipresent--but your intelligent designer forgot to mention it. Now that we have some pretty powerful microscopes we see it in the air we breathe and nestled in air pockets of icebergs--and we see over 20,000 life forms when we scoop up a liter of sea water. And we're just getting our first glimpses at what is at the bottom of the primordial soup. Nevertheless--we have tons of possible theories and lots of evidence. You and Hewitt and Von Neumann and Hammy still have none for whatever alternate theories you pretend to have. The article I references is much simpler than Hewitt's non-theory. Even my 10th graders could get it:

It just so happens that some pre-life forms stick better to surfaces when water evaporates or washes over rocks. These molecules happen to form colonies of sorts due to their interlocking chirality--(gasp!)--the same chirality we see in life origins. (who'd have thunk it?) Some molecules stick to surfaces better when the water washes away--their shape makes them fit snugly sort of like how the sex organs evolved to do the same--get it? I thought not.

As for ribosomes and replicators--well, increasingly it's looking like viruses may have been our first ancestoral life-ish forms...I hate to break it to you.

http://www.virologyj.com/content/2/1/23/abstract

Replication of a circular plasmid lacking specific poxvirus DNA sequences mimics viral genome replication by occurring in cytoplasmic viral factories and requiring all five known viral replication proteins. Therefore, small plasmids may be used as surrogates for the large poxvirus genome to study trans-acting factors and mechanism of viral DNA replication.


See also: http://www.discover.com/issues/mar-06/cover/

And a nice smackdown of Behe here:
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/02/unintelligent_d.html
(though not nearly as good as Judge Jones' opinion.)

And while you creationists are playing on line, the information just keeps piling up:

http://www.eurekah.com/chapter/1255

The transition from the RNA to the DNA world was a major event in the history of life. The invention of DNA required the appearance of enzymatic activities for both synthe- sis of DNA precursors, retro-transcription of RNA templates and replication of single- and double-stranded DNA molecules. Recent data from comparative genomics, structural biology and traditional biochemistry have revealed that several of these enzymatic activities have been invented independently more than once, indicating that the transition from RNA to DNA genomes was more complex than previously thought. The distribution of the different protein families corresponding to these activities in the three domains of life (Archaea, Eukarya, and Bacteria) is puzzling. In many cases, Archaea and Eukarya contain the same version of these proteins, whereas Bacteria contain another version. However, in other cases, such as thymidylate synthases or type II DNA topoisomerases, the phylogenetic distributions of these proteins do not follow this simple pattern. Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain these observations, including independent invention of DNA and DNA replication proteins, ancient gene transfer and gene loss, and/or nonorthologous replacement. We review all of them here, with more emphasis on recent proposals suggesting that viruses have played a major role in the origin and evolution of the DNA replication proteins and possibly of DNA itself.

Now look at that--we have lots of avenues to explore and we are unraveling the tools we need to learn more. Remember when we thought the Neanderthal was our direct ancestor...it turns out abiogenesis seems to have a lot of starts and stops and evolutionary dead ends as life emerged not unlike the tree of life itself--fancy that! It's not like we are clueless--it's just that we have tons of clues and we are piecing them together...just as we are for all the other branches on the tree of life. We have no shortage of puzzle pieces as you creationist suggest--we just haven't figured out where everything goes yet. Your "theorie"s are like a buzzing distraction--they don't further understanding and they are designed to poke holes in evolution without offering anything in return. Good theories, further understanding: bad theories muddy understanding. Now why don't you be a good creationist and go prepare for the rapture...

(The Amish find all this internet play a bit worldly, you know--)

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Hmmm, I had JREF board troubles until an hour or so ago. I see others may not have had problems.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

It's not just you. Someone mentioned it under one of the forum management topics.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Look Ham, I can post like you do.

Nice evasion. I'm 100% certain gods don't exist. The question concerned god.

What's your point?

Agreed. My discussion concerns the ontology one associates with the Universe (or Multiverse, perhaps). Are you 100% certain that what we have named matter/energy exists? I'm 100% certain thought exists.

That's not what you asked. And you took this sentence out of context.

Unknown. I haven't seen any such detection under the current rubric of science.

I didn't ask your opinion.

Yup.

We agree, wow!

Why yes, I am, knowing the definition of both invisible and pink.

Good for you.

My question concerned god.

I answered that.

What part of available scientific evidence do you have faith I reject?

"It happened" was the quote of mine you disputed. Did you have "faith" in my quote or not?

I have no more faith in the Bible than you do.

What part of the Biblical claims do you have faith I reject?

You're getting sillier as you go along.

Perhaps analogies are a mystery to you?

Do you think I dispute those observed facts? I don't.

What's your point?

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Why don’t describe to us the selective process that would evolve a gene de novo? Why don’t you tell us what the components of the DNA replicase system were doing before DNA could be replicated?

Why don't you tell us the mathematics of de novo?

Is that what you are having trouble understanding, my use of the term “de novo”? It is a Latin term meaning from the beginning. The is/are no selection process(es) that would evolve any gene from the beginning. Nothing that would select the sequence of bases for the genes that code for hemoglobin or insulin or for the numerous genes that code for the enzymes in the Krebs cycle or the proteins needed in the DNA replicase system or the proteins in the coagulation cascade or the tens of thousands of other proteins that are required by living things. Somehow, evolutionarians have convinced themselves by repeating the slogan “mutation and natural selection” that these genes and their resultant polypeptides could evolve. Unless there is some selective advantage in the assembly of these genes, you are dependent solely on random process to generate these genes and their resultant proteins.

There is no mathematics of evolving a gene de novo because there is no selection process to evolve genes from the beginning.

Oh that's right. You can't. You speak of 'mathematical impossibility' but all you've got is qualitative incredulity.

That’s not quite correct. I have the mathematics of one of your own high placed scientist at the National Cancer Institute who wrote a computer simulation of random point mutations and natural selection. This model was peer reviewed and published in Nucleic Acids Research. This is an Oxford University Press scientific journal. I was invited by this scientist to study his model and I did what I have been trained to do with computer simulations. I did a parametric study of his model and obtained quantitative results, not qualitative results. Study this thread and the thread on this topic on the Evolutionisdead forum and perhaps you will understand the ‘mathematical impossibility’ that this computer model demonstrates for your theory. But this is not the worst news for your theory. It is the lack of a selective process to evolve genes de novo that prevents any computer simulation from truly demonstrating your theory.

Which does of course explain why your posts are almost devoid of any semblance of anything that could be considered mathematic.

The mathematics is there for anyone who wants to look for it. After all, you found my error about the effect of population on the probabilities of a mutation occurring at a particular locus. If you look closely, you will find two other algebraic errors I have made on these threads, one of which Dr Schneider corrected and another which Myriad corrected. None of these errors I have made affect the underlying premise of my argument. So study these threads and learn why your theory has at least two fatal mathematical flaws which makes your theory impossible.

The problem is that mathematics is precise kleinman, you will get no respect from mathematicians let alone biologists for your bullocks.

I agree that mathematics is precise, this is why I don’t allow this discussion to diverge too far from the mathematics. Mathematics minimizes the interpretation that you can impose on the data. Mathematics is forcing a structure on your slogan “mutation and natural selection”. Most people can understand balancing a checkbook. This principle is being applied to your concept of evolution based on your own accounting rules and the your books don’t balance. The worst news for you is that you don’t have an accounting rule for the evolution of a gene de novo (that’s from the beginning for you cyborg).

Dr Schneider’s model shows that extremely short genomes such as his published example can evolve binding sites very rapidly (less than 1,000 generations). From existing life forms, you can get a sense of the minimum number of genes required to be free living. Google the word “symbionts” and you we find examples of life forms that have genomes less than 700,000 base pairs but are not free living and are dependent upon a host for crucial metabolic assistance in order to survive.

OK, so your position is that as 700,000 is the empirical reality of the smallest free living life form, that this is the actual minimum possible genome size.

But, your position is merely speculation -- not science, so we'll just have to toss it out. Which leaves the argument right where it was, with you having to prove that Unnamed's selection mechanism is flawed. Otherwise, he's successfully rebutted your contention that evolution is unreasonably slow.

You think I would speculate about the length of genomes in living creatures, how could I be so unscientific? You are dreaming if you think that Unnamed’s selection mechanism has any relationship with reality, of course that makes it perfect for your theory of evolution.

Why don’t describe to us the selective process that would evolve a gene de novo? Why don’t you tell us what the components of the DNA replicase system were doing before DNA could be replicated? Do you want to tell us how ribose could form in the primordial soup? Or are these a few minor gaps in your theory?

Gee, you ought to get out more instead of trying to invent mathematical formulas that prove evolution wrong. De novo mutations happen in genes all the time. Heard of dwarfism?

Do you care to tell us what gene evolved de novo to lead to dwarfism? I think you are having the same problem understanding the terminology “de novo” that cyborg is having. De novo means “from the beginning”.

 

[articulett]

Finally! What harm does it do to look in depth and critically (as I don't genuinely believe that you've done) at John's theory, starting with an open mind.

I did. I have trouble understanding it. I contend that everyone else does as well, since no-one seems to be clarifying. Compare that to this far more simplistic explanation:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061109130729.htm

Even you should be able to sum that up and compare and contrast the furthering of understanding this explanation gives compared to John's oscillation "theory" where cells=true replicators.

And as for your interpretation of me and what is going on in this thread--I will point out that only you seem to be deriving your particular understanding. To me, your claims are as convoluted and unsupported as John Hewitt's and Kleinmans. Moreover, it appears you've had similar issues with others. Instead of worrying about my verbosity, perhaps it would serve you well to look at your own or to plow through Hewitt's and see if you can possibly understand what he is saying and what his problem with evolution is--and then tell the rest of us.

You refer to creationist as the "c-word" while claiming that most Christians would proudly admit their Christianity in the scientific community?! Is there anyone out there other than yourself who gives you credibility on this topic? Have you read anything about Dover and the wedge strategy?

And it was not 3 people ganging up against John. I asserted the god thing, because I thought it was obvious. Others, apparently, had reached similar conclusions. John challenged me--I explained. And now others are trying to pin him down to see if he actually believes life on earth must come from natural sources and trying to tease out what his actual objections to our current understanding of life's origins are as well as his problem with speciation and why he thinks Behe has valid points. Most people do not want to be sucked into a never ending conversation with a creationist, because once or twice is enough. That's why people are ignoring Kleinman. That's why people ignore Hammy.

No one can pin Hewitt down. He obfuscates or ignores. The same tactic as Kleinman. Instead of coming back with new math obfuscations he just ignores questions and comments aimed at furthering understanding of his position. And it works fabulously well on the uniformed as you so readily illustrate.

Call me psychic, but John will not clarify or alter his stance one bit no matter how much people analyze his claims and explain and question him. No one will come to any understanding as to what his theory actually is, and he will claim it's because scientists are lying cheaters with a flawed theory they are too blind to understand. He did this exact thing on the meme thread and Wowbagger carefully held his hand along the way just as Paul did with Kleinman-- He wants everyone to try and disprove his incomprehensible theory rather than to understand or read anything new that shows us how we are very much on the right path without his oscillating-cell-replicating-sex-ethics-free-will whatever-the-hell theory.

 

[articulett]

Hmmm, I had JREF board troubles until an hour or so ago. I see others may not have had problems.

I did too. I took it as a sign to get off line and attend to life duties.

 

[articulett]

Kleinman--de novo means a new mutation--one that is not inherited. Most forms of achondroplasia are due to a de novo mutations; though achondroplasia itself is autosomal dominant.

http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/ghr/glossary/denovomutation;jsessionid=2F82D7E494C548B17F5467BEBF907511

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

The is/are no selection process(es) that would evolve any gene from the beginning. Nothing that would select the sequence of bases for the genes that code for hemoglobin or insulin or for the numerous genes that code for the enzymes in the Krebs cycle or the proteins needed in the DNA replicase system or the proteins in the coagulation cascade or the tens of thousands of other proteins that are required by living things. Somehow, evolutionarians have convinced themselves by repeating the slogan “mutation and natural selection” that these genes and their resultant polypeptides could evolve. Unless there is some selective advantage in the assembly of these genes, you are dependent solely on random process to generate these genes and their resultant proteins.

In the first place there is no evidence that any of the processes you've cited were present in the first life form, especially in their current form. And most definitely weren't. And most of the proteins you've mentioned are not encoded by single genes. They are the product of enzymatic reactions from multiple genes which have multiple functions currently and historically. So there would definitely be selection pressures acting on those genes to get them to the state we seen them now.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Kleinman--de novo means a new mutation--one that is not inherited. Most forms of achondroplasia are due to a de novo mutations; though achondroplasia itself is autosomal dominant.

De novo is Latin for “from the beginning” or “anew”. When I apply this terminology to a gene, such as “de novo evolution of a gene”, what I am say is the new evolution of an entire gene. For example, at one time the gene which codes for hemoglobin did not exist. If I understand your theory, at some time in the distant past, this gene evolved on creatures for which it served as a selective advantage. So the first base for the sequence mutated on one of these creatures. Since a single base does not code for anything, there was no selective advantage for that creature. So a second base for the sequence of that gene occurred without selection. Still only two bases, not enough to code for a single amino acid therefore no selective advantage. A third base in the sequence occurs by random mutation without selection. Now you can code for a single amino acid but what selective advantage do you have? You continue to have random mutations without selection because what benefit is a partially completed gene that codes for a non-functional protein? There is no selection process that would select for a gene from the beginning. Until the gene has sufficient length to code for some beneficial polypeptide, you have no selection process. Without a selection process, the probabilities of forming a gene de novo by random mutations alone is infinitesimally small. I hope this is not too convoluted for you to understand.

The is/are no selection process(es) that would evolve any gene from the beginning. Nothing that would select the sequence of bases for the genes that code for hemoglobin or insulin or for the numerous genes that code for the enzymes in the Krebs cycle or the proteins needed in the DNA replicase system or the proteins in the coagulation cascade or the tens of thousands of other proteins that are required by living things. Somehow, evolutionarians have convinced themselves by repeating the slogan “mutation and natural selection” that these genes and their resultant polypeptides could evolve. Unless there is some selective advantage in the assembly of these genes, you are dependent solely on random process to generate these genes and their resultant proteins.

In the first place there is no evidence that any of the processes you've cited were present in the first life form, especially in their current form. And most definitely weren't. And most of the proteins you've mentioned are not encoded by single genes. They are the product of enzymatic reactions from multiple genes which have multiple functions currently and historically. So there would definitely be selection pressures acting on those genes to get them to the state we seen them now.

Speculate all you want but don’t call it science. Why don’t you speculate on what the selection mechanism was that led to the formation of the very first gene?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

For example, at one time the gene which codes for hemoglobin did not exist. If I understand your theory, at some time in the distant past, this gene evolved on creatures for which it served as a selective advantage.

Earth to Kleinman: There is no gene for hemoglobin.

Speculate all you want but don’t call it science. Why don’t you speculate on what the selection mechanism was that led to the formation of the very first gene?

No thanks, I'd rather talk about evolution.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

For example, at one time the gene which codes for hemoglobin did not exist. If I understand your theory, at some time in the distant past, this gene evolved on creatures for which it served as a selective advantage.

Earth to Kleinman: There is no gene for hemoglobin.

Ok RecoveringYuppy, let’s run with this. The protein portion of the hemoglobin complex is composed of two different polypeptide globins. Are your arguing that these globins are not transcribed from their corresponding genes? If not, you only weaken your argument more so since now you have two genes, neither of which have a selection process to evolve them de novo to form the hemoglobin complex.

Speculate all you want but don’t call it science. Why don’t you speculate on what the selection mechanism was that led to the formation of the very first gene?

No thanks, I'd rather talk about evolution.

So the first gene didn’t evolve?